So I believe there should be a closed form solution for implied risk aversion for two assets but I'm not sure how to get there. Say you have Quadratic Utility $U$ on a fully invested portfolio of two assets ($w_1 + w_2 = 1$):

$$ U = r_p - \frac{\lambda}{2} \, \sigma^2_p $$

and given capital market returns ($r_i$) and vols ($\sigma_i$) for each asset and a correlation ($\rho_{12}$) between the two assets.

In a usual problem, you might be given the risk aversion ($\lambda$) and find the weights ($w_1$, $w_2$) that maximize the utility. What I'm looking for is a closed form solution for the opposite problem of implied risk aversion, in other words given an optimal portfolio ($w^*_1$, $w^*_2$) what is the implied risk aversion $\lambda$ for a client that would want that optimal portfolio.

$$ \lambda(w^*_1, w^*_2, r_1, r_2, \sigma_1,\sigma_2, \rho_{12}) =\, ... $$

Edit: @KermitFrog reminded me that solution must still be an optimal one and then $\lambda$ can be solved for. Giving the below:

$$ 0 = \frac{dU}{dw_1} $$

$$ 0 = \frac{d}{dw_1}[w_1r_1 + w_2r_2 - \frac{\lambda}{2}(w_1^2\sigma_1^2 + w_2^2\sigma_2^2 + 2\rho\sigma_1\sigma_2w_1w_2)] $$ $$ 0 = r_1 - r_2 - \frac{\lambda}{2} [2w_1\sigma_1^2 - 2w_2\sigma_2^2 - 2\rho\sigma_1\sigma_2(w_1-w_2)] $$

$$ \lambda = \frac{r_1-r_2}{w_1\sigma_1^2 - w_2\sigma_2^2 - \rho\sigma_1\sigma_2(w_1-w_2)} $$


yes that is of course possible.

If you set up the corresponding optimisation,

$$ L=w^T\mu - \frac{\lambda}{2}w^T\Sigma w - h\left(w^T\mathbf{1}-1\right) $$ and find the first order conditions:

$$ \begin{pmatrix} \lambda\Sigma & \mathbf{1}\\ \mathbf{1}^T&0 \end{pmatrix}\begin{pmatrix}w\\h\end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\mu \\ 1\end{pmatrix} $$

you see that the solution is again the usual:

$$ w^*=\frac{1}{\lambda}\left(\Sigma^{-1}-\frac{\mathbf{1}\mathbf{1}^T\Sigma^{-1}}{\mathbf{1}^T\Sigma^{-1}\mathbf{1}}\right)\mu+\frac{\Sigma^{-1}\mathbf{1}}{\mathbf{1}^T\Sigma^{-1}\mathbf{1}} $$

From here on, you can back it out.

| improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ So I admit it has been a few decades since I learned Lagrange multipliers. Is \gamma above a standard formation? $\endgroup$ – rhaskett May 1 at 16:52
  • $\begingroup$ It was a typo. I corrected to lambda. $\endgroup$ – Kermittfrog May 1 at 18:13

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.